Faith isn't unreasonable

I sell for a company located in Springfield, Ohio: Electric Eel Manufacturing, which is where to go for all your drain cleaning needs. They make the best products on the market, and I say that not simply because I sell them but because it's true. But this is about more than that. It is about the people who make up the company, but also, I hope, about a little bit more.

As I drove there awhile back from Detroit, in the wee hours of the day, I was nearing a little town called North Baltimore. There is a truck stop at the exit for the town, and I often stop in for a respite, a coffee, or a snack. I was planning to do that this day but as I approached a little voice said, "Why don't you just go on?", and I thought, yeah, why not, might as well make some time. So I drove by.

Urbana, Ohio is about 30 miles from Springfield. I thought I might get a coffee that time around, and hit my left turn signal to run into a Tim Horton's. But that same voice said, "You're so close. Just get to the factory." So I thought again, I might ought to, and I am quite close. I went on.

I parked at the plant, took a few things into the front offices, and went back out to take my van to the loading dock to pick up my order. I turned the key, and was greeted by a simple little click which I recognized immediately. My starter had went out. But rather than being upset, even though I knew the repair would be costly and that my day would be seriously delayed, I right away thought that I was glad I was there and not in North Baltimore or Urbana.

In part I knew this was fortunate because the people at Eel, good folks all, would help me, and they did. We tried a jump start and a few other things which unfortunately didn't work, and then the shop foreman called their mechanic, who took me in right away. He had me fixed up and I was back at the plant by 11 O'clock, loading and getting ready to get back to Detroit much earlier than I had feared a few hours before.

I had told several friends earlier in the day about my almost stopping but not. I related this story to another fellow right before I left. John said simply, "It was the Holy Spirit." The instant he said that I agreed, "You're right. It was."

Now we might look at this in different ways. It could be objected that if it was God trying to help me, "You still needed an expensive van repair. Why would you be thankful to Him for that?" But we all know the obvious response, don't we? My situation would have been much worse in the earlier part of the day in more isolated places.

Still, this doesn't prove that it was the Holy Spirit. It is a matter of faith, mine and John's and surely several other folks at Electric Eel and among readers, that it was. And this leads to the key trouble which people not of faith have with such an insistence. They will themselves insist that such faith is irrational.

But is it rational, irrational, or in fact beyond reason? Being beyond reason doesn't mean that faith is wrong; it doesn't actually mean that faith is irrational either. I rather believe that faith, so long as it is not childish and thus genuinely irrational, is actually quite reasonable. Saying that you believe by faith that aardvarks speak English is obviously irrational, as any absurd assertion must be. As such, we can dismiss such a belief as not a true example of real faith. But the idea that an omnipotent, caring being might help us along the way is certainly not irrational. A faith in that sort of being most definitely cannot be called unreasonable.

Oh, you might argue that such a being doesn't exist. Yet that is a separate question, and we're already past that if we presume He does: if A, then B is logical on its own terms. It still fulfills any demand for rationality beyond simply holding the supposed blind faith which many of the seriously religious are accused of having.

I have faith that the Holy Spirit kept me going so that I could get easier help at my ultimate destination. I find the thought indeed eminently rational. You may not agree that that was the case. But I do think you're being unfair to say that my thoughts are therefore irrational. Even if you don't believe that was the case, at least don't think I childishly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If something of faith can pass or (at least not fail) the test of rationality then there is little reason to disregard it as merely a figment of the imagination. Don't dismiss it merely because it cannot be proven empirically. Faith simply is not belief without reason. It is belief beyond reason, perhaps, but it is not necessarily unreasonable.

There's Nothing Wrong With True Dogma

What, please tell us, is wrong with dogmatism? That may sound like a random question, but it was brought to our mind this morning by a quote we stumbled upon which, basically, (we would really rather not print the quote because it's long and, we're ready to argue, anyway, self-contradictory and insipid) encourages us to let go of our preconceptions in order that we may be able to become creative.

The first question which entered our minds was, where's the lack of dogmatism within such statements? It was simply another way of saying think outside the box, which itself is dogmatic, isn't it? Which brings us to the crux of the issue here: isn't every axiomatic statement dogmatic? As such, what's the point in even those flaccid sentiments if we aren't supposed to be dogmatic?

Yes, we know, they're talking about the sort of pig headed dogmatism which does indeed prevent the solving of problems and the possibility of greater understanding among peoples. But isn't there something more to that, really? Simply the fact that we've qualified the term 'dogmatism' with the derisive term 'pig headed' indicates that it is not the dogma which is the problem but, rather, the lack of reason on the part of such speakers. Surely those who are dogmatic in the cause of righteousness, whose dogma is true dogma, aren't wrong to insist on their points of view?

The fact is that everyone's dogmatic. Every single one of us. We all have axioms at the heart of our philosophies which guide us and are taken by us as simply true in themselves, which require no defense (as one isn't really possible) due to the fact they are reason itself. The question then becomes, are those defining points true in themselves?

So please don't ask me, as nothing more than a result of your dogma, to release my dogma. You'll have to do better than that if you really want me to listen to you. You'll have do something more in countering my dogma than rely on yours. Especially when what you assert fights against itself. That isn't useful dogma. But it is a recipe for a holy war.

The Source of Morality

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

- George Washington, from his Farewell Address

We have said many times that morality, indeed any issues of right and wrong, must have a God of some sort behind them. Without an objective norm to fall back on, any and all questions of good and evil, even issues of simple prudence, are nothing more than your word against mine. In such a case, problems would be resolved only through might makes right, whether at the hand of a single tyrant or that old saw consensus, which is but a name for the tyranny of the majority. We must do right because it is right on its own terms as instituted by the Creator of the natural law.

Consensus cannot make something right. Consensus is merely what the majority of the people at a given time happen to want, which they are then able to subject upon the minority. Do we honestly believe that such is the best way to create good law and rational public policy?

Obviously it is not. We require a Supreme Being, a supreme and final Law, in order to do well and avoid evil. To those who object, which God?, we say, the one whom philosophy, not religion, insists is there. From that point we can safely speculate on how such a being would expect us to act. It is then when we start to cross into religious principle because at that point we begin to realize that people are special, that doing wrong against them is an evil in itself because it is an affront to their dignity as individuals. A dignity they have by virtue of their humanity, as given them by God. It does not come from them or anything they do.

So there is no reason to base morality and law on anything slippery such as convention, which can and will change as generations do. We need that eternal sense, that eternal reality, if we are to make a good society, and become good people. For any ideal of dignity must come from the religious ideal that everyone deserves proper respect. That cannot come from any simple human act. It can only come from above, overarching each individual. We recognize that and live accordingly, or we slowly perish.

Personal Revelation.

I did not watch the bulk of last night's Stanley Cup Game Seven between the hometown Detroit Red Wings and the now champion Pittsburgh Penguins. Part of the reason you know: it isn't worth the emotional investment. But more than that, in this instance. I knew last week that if the Wings didn't win the third game of the series that they would not win the Cup.

Don't ask me how, but I swear that I simply knew. Consequently, I did not have too difficult of a time essentially ignoring the series as it progressed. But to my real point this morning: beyond innocuous and ultimately unimportant events such as sports and games, I believe that there are times where, for our own good, we are simply told things which we need to know, things which generally cannot be proven within the scope of reason alone.

What I am speaking of is nothing less than personal revelation, and I see no reason why such revelation should not come from God. Yet I understand that this is a dangerous ground upon which I trod, for obviously, it is an area fraught with trouble. That does not mean my point is invalid. For it stands to reason (you should note that I never said reason is completely beyond the realm of revelation; it cannot be) tests of revealed truth exist.

If a voice in you head says to rob or murder, reason tells us that revelation would not encourage that. I could give out may more examples but I think the point is already made. God may well tell you from time to time what you need to do, with no explanation. There will simply be a morsel of knowledge planed within you for your aid merely because it is impossible to know everything on reason alone. You cannot argue by reason whom you should marry, yet you may be told who it is, if you listen, and have a bushel of trouble avoided.

That morsel will never be unreasonable. All you need to do is be open to it when it comes.